Chapter 9 IRAC Case- Valley of the SunGriffith v. Valley of Sun Recovery, Inc.[1]

Don Gorney was a "repo man"someone authorized to find and take cars whose owners are behind on payments, who worked for the defendant, Valley of the Sun. A repossessor is allowed to drive away in such a car, provided he can do it peacefully. One night, he sought a car belonging to Linda Marsalek and Bob Williams. Gorney knew that there had been other, failed efforts to repossess the Marsalek car, including a violent confrontation involving attack dogs. He thought he could do better. Gorney went to the car at 4:00 in the morning. He unscrewed the bulb in an overhead street lamp. He unlocked the car, setting off its alarm, and quickly hid. The alarm aroused the neighborhood. Williams and a neighbor, Griffith, investigated and concluded it was an attempted theft. They called the police. Gorney watched all of this from his hiding place. When everyone had gone, Gorney entered the car, again setting off the alarm and arousing the neighborhood. Williams and Griffith again emerged, as did another neighbor, dressed in his underwear and carrying a shotgun. They all believed they had caught a thief. Williams shouted for the gun and the neighbor passed it to him, but it went off accidentally and severely injured Griffith. Griffith, the neighbor who was shot sued Valley of Sun on a negligence claim. The trial court granted summary judgment for Valley of Sun, ruling that Valley of the Sun did not owe a duty of reasonable care to Griffith, and Griffith (the neighbor who was shot) appealed.

1. What is the issue in this case? In other words, what question does the court need to answer to resolve this case? Always phrase your issue as a question.

1. What is the rule of law in this case? Remember, the rule of law is the legal principle the court relies upon to resolve the issue.

1. Which specific element of the rule is in question in this case?

You are now the judge in this case. Read the arguments below and analyze the case.Argument for Griffith:Your honors, Mr. Griffith should be allowed to make his case to a jury and let it decide whether Valley of Sun's repossession led to his injury. Mr. Griffith has demonstrated every element of negligence. Valley of Sun had a duty to everyone in the area when it attempted to repossess a car. It could easily have foreseen injury. Car repossessions always involve antagonism between the car owner and the repo company. Obviously, Gorney breached his duty. He was caught up in some fantasy, dreaming that he was Harrison Ford in an adventure film. He knew from previous repossession attempts that trouble was certain. But rather than minimizing the danger, he exacerbated it. He unscrewed a lightbulb, guaranteeing poor visibility and confusion. He set off the car alarm twice, making the whole neighborhood jittery.Factual causation is indisputable. Had it not been for his preposterous game playing, no neighbors would have been outside, no guns presentand no accidental shooting. And this type of harm is easily foreseeable. We should have a chance to take our case to a jury. Argument for Valley of Sun Recovery:Your honors, there are three good reasons to end this case today: no duty, no breach, no causation. It is preposterous to suggest that Valley of Sun has a legal duty to an entire neighborhood. Car owners who are behind on their payments live in all parts of all communities. Is a repossession company to become an insurer of the entire city?Yes, some danger is involved because delinquent owners are irresponsible and sometimes dangerous. Should we therefore allow them to keep their cars? Of course not. We must act, and that is what Valley of Sun does. They do it safely, your honors. Even if there had been a duty, there was no breach. Mr. Gorney attempted to repossess when it was least likely anyone would see him. What should Mr. Gorney have done, asked for permission to take the car?Thatis a recipe for violence. If the owner were reasonable, there would be no repossession in the first place.

1. Write your case analysis. (You are going to apply the rule of law to the facts in this case with the goal of coming to the answer to the issue, and a conclusion to the case).

1. What is your conclusion? How do you rule, your Honor?